For example, you can’t just add new search engines to iOS Safari with just a URL.
There are a few alternatives to Google but there’s no easy way for a new entrant to get in there.
EDIT: Interesting. I’m picking up downvotes for this, is there some way to achieve this (other than jailbreaking) I’ve missed?
EG Ecosia is a recent entry, so it does seem that Apple does look into this and introduce new options that can serve their audience size with sufficient quality results. Getting included seems more about making a unique and useful product.
Other than downloading another web browser which features more fine tuning options for web browsing, one can also download safari extensions that increase the search capability in both mobile/desktop safari. One such extension is called xSearch, which presents the familiar idea of using shortcut terms to direct search queries to any number of custom configurable search providers. The share sheet extension also extends this into other apps, and similarly because it uses the standard URL scheme, it can push queries into entirely different apps other than Safari for the search to take place. (eg search this text in the Twitter app.)
Also, many other search engines uses Google's search API. But as you said, that requires direct relationship with Google sales.
Is it possible to do using .mobileconfig profiles maybe?
(Off topic: Is there a specification somewhere on what's possible using .mobileconfig profiles?)
Wow nice! Now if there was a containers extension I could switch to Safari and away from Firefox.
Blew my mind. Maybe I am missing something.
I go to preferences -> search. Then to 'Default search engine', which gives me a combo which gives me Google/Bing/eBay/Wikipedia. But I can not add anything to the combo.
Further down, there is 'One-Click Search Engines' which contain the same options. No button to add one. Below is a 'Find more search engines' link which leads me to the plugins page.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-custom-se...
I don't get this logic, honestly. What is the point of not being able to add any and all search engines to Apple?
I don't like this approach, but it is very consistent in their products, features tend to disappear over time and new ones only pop up if they're very sexy and can be announced on-stage.
“My search no longer works!” “Sir you have the search registry key set to ‘turkey bake time’”
“Well that’s what I was searching for, and then the search stopped working completely. iPhones are the worst, I’m gonna tell all my friends”
For example, my family member is a smart woman and I used to teach professionally. I haven’t yet found a way to teach her what a web browser is and isn’t.
This is relevant to the things she wants to get done (e.g. shortcuts don’t run in webview, gmail’s native app doesn’t support recipient groups but the web app does, etc)
After warmup, examples, Socratic questioning, task assignments, checking understanding and testing (with detailed feedback), it seems she approximately learns what a web browser is and when she is and isn’t in one, but then she doesn’t really understand it a couple days later.
She’s otherwise as clever and capable as everybody else or rather more clever.
At Apple’s scale, every added feature to a web browser adds thousands of clever people quitting in confusion.
That’s why they hide things like search engine selection under menus an average user will never see, even if accidentally pressing 37 not-quite-randomly wrong things during a session.
We here have the curse of expertise.
The best Apple UX can do for the majority of the population is say no to features more often than yes, and to hide deep under the hood any setting that persists after the device is restarted and could lead to confused angry consumers that can’t figure out what to do and don’t have nearby family members to solve it before they quit.
Likely the best bet would be a web extension manifest value to expose a potential search engine. That would mean on iOS that you still need to publish an app for your search engine option to show up.
[1] Due to circumstances, I have needed to demo a certain location web app to quite a few people. I am not exaggerating.
If the user rejected Safari's access to location, sites also will also not get location data. However, Safari has asked me for access the first time on several phone installs, so I believe Safari not having location services is still a user choosing to limit platform access at some point during setup or on demand in Safari.
Unfortunately the public often does not trust even the platform vendor with location access. I somewhat blame Google for leading the public narrative to that point - but it is admittedly a very easy topic to fearmonger about.
(Said as someone who often has to restore location access to Apple and Google maps on family members' phones as part of troubleshooting issues)
You joke, but I still have PTSD from the IE7 days. https://www.linux-noob.com/forums/uploads/post-12-1098049148...
What’s the point in hiding how it works behind a GUI widget?
If you just want to abstract everything behind the least UX possible, use curl to browse the web.
Watch them hide everything behind UI and all the tech nerds complain they can’t see how anything works then!
It’s IT people whining their way into closed systems with their circular back n forth; open source/diy or closed and they do it all for me!
There is no middle ground.
- Google (default, duh)
- Yahoo
- Bing
- DuckDuckGo
- Ecosia
There is no obvious option to add another search engine. Just as an additional data point here.
It is easy to conceive of reasons why a company would not want to enable native UI elements to rely on external services without having vetted those services or established a relationship with them for recourse in the event of issues. It is harder--though not impossible--to conceive of ways to avoid these issues.
If I add an arbitrary default search engine via URL, and that search engine is later compromised or serves up garbage or malware, that's a problem for Apple, even though we'd all like to believe we're above-average users who wouldn't blame Apple for our own choices.
Apple should provide the option.
I have to assume you're not trolling, and really can't conceive of an entire large category of people who might, in response to a Facebook post, follow step-by-step instructions to change their default search engine without understanding the ramifications thereof, or how to change it back.
There are more people in that category than in the category of people who change their default search engine for good reason, knowing that it may deliver a less-optimal experience than Google under some circumstances.
What doesn't make sense is believing that every human being is always intelligent and rational and never forgets anything.
Downvote patterns on HN are the most lunatic of any I've seen, including on much lower-quality fora. I wouldn't try to fit a model to it.
I just assume that's what's going on here.
But, the revenue Apple get from the deal/trust with Google is better than MSFT or Yahoo ever got by competing with them. It's also easy, risk free and pure profit. So, the deal essentially ensures that Apple will not compete.
Apple now also have an interest in maintaining their (alleged) trust. It's now in both parties interest to maintain Google's dominance of the space. It's also in both their interest to have a large ad market. Competition is not necessarily head-2-head. If Apple couldn't make money by funneling user to Google, they might prefer to just suppress ads. I'm sure if they asked users, users would want that. "Phone with fewer ads, ad-related tracking, etc.) is a potential selling point.
IANAL, and more to the point, I dislike both legal framework around antitrust and the intellectual framework implied by much of it. There's just a lot more to monopoly than either take into account.
Such deals are, IMO, evidence that monopoly^ in general is to the detriment of competition, innovation, churn and other such positive market outcomes. I also think more monopoly is concerning on "free culture" grounds, it perculates to politics/government, etc. Lets leave those aside though.
Apple & Google themselves were only able to innovate and prosper because monopolies did not yet control the microcomputer or the web. App stores, OTOH...
*Meant broadly. Read, Trust, cartel oligopoly, monopsony, bigness...
Apple did implement content blockers to block ads. I do not see ads when I use Safari in iOS or macOS.
It is hard to imagine someone who went through the age of Flash-based ads not looking at all injected advertisements with a sense of utter scorn, though. The split between content provider and advertising marketplace otherwise seems to mean that both consider the end user to only be valued in terms of their eyeballs.
I suspect it is because for some people, the advertisements actually are on-point and represent things they might be interested in.
I still find direct advertisement arrangements - such as temporarily co-branding a gaming site with a launching game, having a podcast talk about sponsors' products - to be much more on point.
To be clear, Apple does have search and does sell advertising for it. https://searchads.apple.com
They also attempt to summarize information when you do a system-level or browser-bar search. When the search shows me the local weather or a flight status or gives me a summary and direct link to Wikipedia as I type, they are taking that engagement from Google.
What Apple hasn't shown interest in so far is being a general-purpose internet search engine.
0: https://luke.lol/search/ (hn comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29796924)
Why is that the alternative? No one is saying Apple have to provide their own search engine; people are suggesting Mac products should give the user a clear choice.
A much more obvious alternative is that Apple (or any OS provider for that matter) shouldn't be able to sell the default search engine option on their products to the highest bidder without making it easy to change. When Microsoft lost their IE law suit they added a simple set of options to Windows as part of setup to pick a browser. Apple could do the same for search engines.
You could read the current situation as Apple using their position as the only provider of Mac OS software to make $20bn/year by refusing to give users a choice of search provider. It doesn't really matter that the search is a separate company - the issue is lack of choice that distorts the market in favor of two companies (Apple and Google) rather than consumers. That's bait for anti-trust lawyers.
I agree though that Google pays Apple billions to be the default stinks. Even though in this case Apple greed aligns perfectly with user expectation.
I, for one, am happy that Google isn't able to unilaterally dictate the next generation of web standards.
They already have the option to switch to Chrome on iOS. It's not like most iOS users know that Chrome on iOS is just a re-skinned Safari. They would use Chrome if Safari was insufficient for their needs or Chrome had some compelling feature they wanted. I have Chrome installed on my phone but it's so I can use the password manager, but I still prefer to use Safari as my browser.
If Apple decided there next phone would have no screen or phone it would automatically make it a better choice because it is so much more different from android? I don't buy that line of thinking.
Because it will make iPhones worse for a huge number of iPhone users. You might say “I don’t care if you’re less satisfied with your iPhone because you now have ‘more choice’ according to my limited definition.” But Apple presumably actually cares about how satisfied people are with their iPhones.
Instead they should allow users to do what they want with their own device.
That way everyone gets what they want, with the device that they own.
For example, Microsoft had ~95% market share of the entire computing market when they tried to embrace and extinguish Netscape.
It's why it was perfectly fine for Google to use its web services to influence competition within the Android OS market.
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sherman-antiturst-act.a...
[2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/clayton-antitrust-act.a...
This is incorrect. From the FTC[1]:
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
So excluding and removing healthy market competition is completely OK in that respect. Or so we're told.
Even that deflection is incorrect. When it comes to the mobile market in the US, Apple has over 60% of the market, and Google has the rest. When it comes to the mobile app distribution market, they're responsible for 100% more sales than Google is, and both companies make up that entire market.
In the US, Apple is the most used mobile and mobile app provider. And even if they weren't, they have a duopoly with Google in a dozen or more markets.
b) They don't have an option to change it.
c) If they were to extend its use for all searches then I can't imagine there would be an issue. And if there was it would likely be across the entire mobile search industry.
People can suggest all they want. Apple doesn't have to take that suggestion. Apple doesn't have to give you the ability to add search engines period. They give 5 choices currently from what I have read. They can also take money for making one of those the default. None of that is illegal.
If that is the case they might not act anti-competetive but, rumours are [0] Apple received up to $20Bn per year in this deal. It is hard to believe that this payment is just for being the default search engine. I strongly suspect that Apple also agrees to not build their own search engine as long as this deal is on - and if that is the case, there will be a strong foundation for an anti-competetive lawsuit.
In practical terms, if Apple launched a search engine that wasn’t the default, would it see much uptake? It seems to me that Google don’t need an agreement for that.
Presumably, what Google gets out of this is the assurance that no such skunkworks project exists.
I imagine close to ~95% of all iOS/OSX searches would likely be hitting those services if you look at the way the UI is implemented.
I don't think Apple would want to make itself the default. That would just invite all kinds of regulatory scrutiny, and would conflict with their pro privacy image. Why bother when they can squeeze Google and get paid billions with no work?
Doesn't seem to have stopped Google with Android.
> would conflict with their pro privacy image.
How so? I'd argue that it would enhance it, because they could advertise that the default AppleSearch protects your privacy better than Google.
They did it for other markets where they do compete - maps most notably.
For Maps specifically, Google wanted Apple to
- push users to log into their Google account
- sharing location data upstream to Google
Supposedly, Google had withheld new feature access from Apple until they got location data reported upstream - turn by turn and vector tiles in particular hurt, as their absence made maps have a limited feature set and use significantly more bandwidth.
The buzz at the time made it sound like Google was still in negotiations when Apple announced at WWDC that they would be using their own maps. They were pretty much blindsided - one of the reasons it took a while before a Google Maps app actually launched for iOS.
Apple likely just decided to launch the product early. The quality of that early launch and how it was handled publicly (along with other internal disputes) is supposedly why Forstall was shown the door.
Because it is not $20B, but $10 / $12B. The range was partly confirmed during a trial where Google mentioned their percentage of profits paying to Apple as being default search engine.
(repeating that this is an analyst estimate/rumour so take it with a grain of salt).
To add some useful information to HN readers, Google has been paying roughly $10 per user to Apple for the past 8 years. So the growth of Google Default Search Engine placement has been growing steadily with Apple's active user. This exclude regions which does not use Google as Default Search Engine.
Unless there are dramatic changes in Google traffic accusation cost in their Quarterly report or going to make a change in 2022 ( Which I am not aware of ), that rumour is completely baseless.
“Search is Google’s most lucrative unit. In 2020, the company generated $104 billion in “search and other” revenues”
iOS users reportedly are bringing in above average ad revenues. So, I do not rule out they’re worth $30 billion of that. If so, “up to $20 billion” could be a reasonable deal for Google. It still brings in loads of memory and deprives the competition (e.g. Microsoft) from those valuable ad targets.
If that really is $20 billion, it also seems Google is willing to give Apple a cut of over (or at least about) 30% of the revenues they make on iOS, though. Would that make an argument for Apple in their disputes over their 30% cut on app revenues?
Well ask yourself what the value of this placement is? Google earns about $200 per user, mostly in ad revenue. If Google search wasn't default, they'd probably lose half the users.
There are 1 billion iPhone users. At $200 each, Google stands to loose $200b. So a price tag of $20b to keep that...
Source?
But yeah, anecdotally, just from visiting their practices, I also noticed most doctors in Austria tend to be in the Apple ecosystem for private use, but their practices and the clinics tend to be Windows.
I always sort of hoped that Apple would either enter the market at some point or acquire DuckDuckGo and try to build out to a larger user base. I realise this is pretty unrealistic, as I'm sure there are far more people out there who would much prefer DDG to remain independent of a megacorp.
I assumed the reason Apple haven't entered the market is that there's likely no way to make money at it without becoming Google, so it would cause them to have two diametrically opposed privacy stances in their business (and because they'd have a long road to build a worthy competitor).
Ex: Cloud search - https://aws.amazon.com/cloudsearch/
I spend enough time and effort searching that paying 50$/month[0] would make sense if it would get me clearly superior tool.
[0] for reference, I pay 250$/month for place where I live (in Poland).
For my work Kagi is already beating Google. In fact there is is almost no competition, it is almost as if they are in completely different leagues:
In one month I have once gone back to find something in Google that Kagi couldn't find.
For every other query the results have been so good that I haven't even bothered to check.
For comparison, if I use Google I always find myself tweaking my queries or trying with DDG or even marginalia in weird cases, and the same with DDG.
So, apparently Kagi is scraping Google and Bing results via a browser extension. Is this legal ?
I'm still puzzled how they get so extremely much better results compared to using any of thise directly or using DDG which does the same only with Bing.
Also a bit worried because I think there was a time when DDG felt the same before they suddenly gave in and started serving answers for queries I didn't ask just like Google but I'm not really sure.
Kagi is both paying Google for API access and using Google infrastructure (GCP), helping Google make revenue that is not ad-supported.
But basically the results are good and if I don't immediately get exactly what I want one pair of doublequotes around a key phrase sorts the rest.
It's ok so far. Looking at only search (ignoring the "lenses" and listicle-like content) I cannot say it's objectively better than using searx with filtering. At least not dramatically better that I would notice. It is however much better in returning results that actually contain my search terms.
For 600$ a year, it would need to offer full-text regex search and/or exact logical operators with controllable approximation (agrep-style).
I would instantly pay 5/mo$ already though, as long as it stays BS free, and doesn't use past search results to refine further queries. Search bubble is an issue in every single service where this is being used, and I'd like my search engine to be totally exempt from it, and/or have exact control over it.
Well, another alternative option is that Apple is forbidden from charging for being included in the list of search providers (as default or otherwise), they can't be pay-to-play, they can pick whatever providers they want they just can't charge for it, so they have to make decisions based on something other than who pays them the most.
Which, now that I think about it, doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world actually... but I really don't think US law requires it.
No idea what (3) regular secret meetings between the executives of both companies; means - but it sure sounds realllly bad and nefarious!
Which executive is going to be dumb enough to put a crime in writing?
It's clear to anyone with half a brain that if Apple enters the search market, the deal is off.
It's a Press Release from a law firm but I'm not sure I would take a law firm that writes like this seriously.
Except for #6, this is literally “Google pays Apple to be the default search provider.”
The alternative option seems to be that Apple is for some reason required to use their position to enter the search market.